About predictive programming

This post is the result of Kevin’s comment left below Maarten’s post at POM blog about unrelated, yet fascinating topic. Kevin and I ended up debating about the Alan Parson’s Project, a band formed in the 70’s, and their spook role and markers. Few comments ended with the idea of predictive programming and I thought it would deserve its own post.

Predictive programming is the brainchild of a man by the name of Alan Watt, and has been popularised by luminaries of conspiracism like Alex Jones and David Icke, the spooks.

Predictive programming is a subtle form of psychological conditioning provided by the media to acquaint the public with planned societal changes to be implemented by our leaders. If and when these changes are put through, the public will already be familiarized with them and will accept them as natural progressions, thus lessening possible public resistance and commotion. –Alan Watt

It would be arrogant to say I figured out what is going on with predictive programming, but I do not believe it is about programming at all, with the predictive part being just an illusion. As Mike Wood explained in his excellent post (which I would recommend as well as reading the comments section):

So that is the theory of predictive programming. At its heart, it is a psychological claim. So is it psychologically plausible? I argue that the answer is no. First, social learning theory shows that context is important when presenting something that’s meant to be a model for future behaviour. Second, the supposed outcomes of predicting programming seem to have nothing to do with the methods used. Third, the mechanisms by which predictive programming are supposed to work don’t make nearly as much sense as they seem to. Fourth, neurolinguistic programming, the most commonly cited psychological justification for why predictive programming could be expected to work, has been thoroughly discredited by research. Finally, predictive programming is not very good at actual predictions. – Mike Wood

The above, more research-based post about predictive programming concludes that it runs counter to one of the foundational experiments in social psychology, its effects and aims are vague and poorly defined, it does not agree with decades of psychological research on mere exposure and subliminal persuasion, its “scientific” justification is completely unsupported by research, and the predictions made by its advocates simply do not pan out. But there is as well a philosophical argument against it. By showing or screening some perverted and immoral things ahead of time does not make those things acceptable. They are still as repulsive as they can get. What is to program about fear and shock, anyway, except for the timing when it is supposed to occur? Am I more prone to accepting anything repulsive if I see it first on the TV? Like I said before, it seems too fantastic to me that anybody could influence my ability to notice and label perversion for what it is just by showing it in advance. Maybe such programming is only about bragging as I think PTB feel very comfortable and confident about their fakery for ages already. They are not feeling threatened by the very few of us, who are capable of cutting through the fog. This idea of programming would make any sense only after the introduction of Holywood, TV and after their produce penetrated each individual household. But apparently the fakery is already centuries old and it worked like a charm without any TV, theaters, radios or even newspapers, in times when literacy among commoners was close to 0% and there was no mass media except for the church altar. TV and mass media make all manipulation easier for sure, but it does not seem as the precondition for their trickery to work.

You could argue that the programming part is obvious as it can be concluded from TV programs or programs handed out by theaters. However, I think many of us think about the same consequences of being influenced, but we choose different terms to name them. We have all seen people’s behavior influenced in a bad way countless times over, wondering each time how is it possible anybody can abuse power for bad deeds. I have come to the conclusion that people in general want and need to be guided, but that fact is being abused by PTB to guide the humanity in some perverse direction. PTB are addicted to power. Both is obvious. The goals are to maintain the status quo and push the destruction of natural, good characteristics of our society (such as for instance functional men-to-women relations), that will further change our society to even more manipulable version of itself. And another zillion perverse goals following. The realization of treason by the PTB is too fantastic and unbelievable for the commoners to comprehend, yet it is the naked truth about our reality. It was happening with my parents, for instance, and numerous friends, all intellectuals, who strongly deny anything bad is done on purpose. Except for terrorism, of course. It is all turned upside down, the elephant is in the room and the emperor is (dancing around) naked, but almost nobody wants to say or notice it. Is that scripted as well, like some sort of mind-muting function?

Looking at it from a different angle, if we define human behavior as everything people do, think and say just as they were taught by the TV, mainstream media or anything coming from PTB , then we could describe it as the programming. However, I think such behavioral programming is not necessary for perversion to get accepted. In my opinion, accepting perversion is a more complex process then just this programming part. People are in general fearful to confront the majority, so they tend to have a herd opinion, they dress, think, talk and speak alike. That is why they look up to some leader, the first among the same. Then they don’t want to think or realize they have been ultimately betrayed by those whom they most trust. Almost nobody likes the truth as it is usually ugly and sad, and they all want happy endings all the time. Majority does not even realize that it is them who make any state or country possible in the first place, and that the government should be representing and protecting them, not the self-imposed few. And so on and so forth. So, it is mostly about the system of beliefs that are opposite to the natural order of things, lack of moral/ethic compass and delusion of democracy and justice. Is it programmed? Or learned? Or both? Is there any difference at all? In my opinion, TV and Holywood only accelerate the process of social degradation. We may call it a change as well, but it is a change for the worse. I hear many people talking about it, but never realizing they are the real issue themselves, all asleep in senseless conformity, colluding with PTB and perversion itself without being aware of it.

The predictive part of such programming is only an illusion, the plan for i.e. 9/11 was laid way back in time by PTB before it got realized. The image of insane Muslim terrorists, which made consequent wars and police states possible, was built over decades. But PTB knew what was coming, of course, since they planned it themselves. So there is apparently nothing predictive about following the plan or schedule or program of the true Big Brother show – our reality. Was Orwell’s “1984” predictive? To us, the commoners, certainly seemed as such, but certainly not to the people in the know. That kind of Orwellian society was the goal, not a coincidence or one man’s vivid imagination. Does “1984” make our insane reality any more acceptable? No, it does not.

But it again depends who is being asked such annoying question, which then enforces heavy usage of brain tissue 🙂 . And people in general run like hell from the challenge of real thinking, don’t they? Common sense is really not so common, I guess.

I have only used the term “predictive programming” in a very small sense and didn’t realize it meant something much larger, as you address, Vex. I claimed that the “deaths” of Janis Joplin (heroin overdose) and Dave McGowan (lung cancer) were forecast by predictive programming, Joplin being widely advertised as a drug addict/alcoholic (she was neither) and McGowan chain smoking in interviews (I assume he was smoking Hollywood cigarettes). But when the deaths happened, people had been forewarned and thought “Sure, I saw that coming.”

Mark, I sincerely hope you didn’t find this post personal in any possible way. It should serve to the purpose of realizing that the psychology terms need proper interpretation, and we need to re-conquer some of the terminology being misused and misinterpreted.

Neuro-linguistic programming or NLP. NLP’s creators claim there is a connection between neurological processes (neuro-), language (linguistic) and behavioral patterns learned through experience (programming), and that these can be changed to achieve specific goals in life. Some NLP “experts” even refer to it as “specifically created in order to allow us to do magic by creating new ways of understanding how verbal and non-verbal communication affect the human brain.” Just bollocks, all of it. 😀

I’m feeling psychologically conflicted. It seems that you and I Vexman are in a debate, yet I agree with your points and think that they are supporting my own. I will need to ponder on that for a while, so for now, let’s stay confined to the Alan Parsons Project. I know better than to enter a gunfight armed with a knife.

You were wondering if Parsons or his writing partner Eric Woolfson were the driving force behind the band’s dark “projections.” I’m going to go with the latter. Instead of releasing APP’s 11th album with Parsons, Woolfson produced a stage musical called “Freudiana.” Woolfson hit upon the idea of researching the life and works of Sigmund Freud with a view to their musical potential…Freud’s writings on his discovery of the ‘unconscious,’ his well-known theories such as the ‘Oedipus Complex,’ the ‘Ego’ and the ‘Id’ and perhaps his best-known masterpiece, ‘The Interpretation of Dreams’ all served as springboards for musical ideas.

The term “predictive programming” is now a loaded term, much like “conspiracy theorist” or “fake news.” I only used it due to the APP song “I Wouldn’t Want to be Like You” being used in a television series about FBI profilers (i.e., predictors of actions.) Obviously, Woolfson was deeply entrenched in psychology. **the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context. The mental characteristics or attitude of a person or group. The mental and emotional factors governing a situation or activity.

Denying programming in entertainment would then mean that psy-ops and propaganda are equally ludicrous terms and have no impact on the overall consciousness and beliefs of people. I fear your getting lost in semantics.

The delay in my reply is about sleep depravity taking over the possession of my mind – I slept for over 8hrs since my last comment, which is a phenomenon in my case.

It doesn’t happen often that I’m confused and have to re-read what we were debating. After refreshing my memory, I’d say that you and I have a different view of the term “predictive programming” (PP from here onward) , where I said there is no such thing as PP and you were saying it surely does exist. You then supported your view with the term “program” (and its derivatives) being used in various contexts, and further saying that perversion requires PP to get accepted (by the masses). Following your comment, I wanted to reply and clarify my view, but decided to post the above post. So I still understand this as a debate, where we’re apparently talking about the same consequences of mind boggling process, yet we define it differently. Please bear in mind that psychology is as much fudged as any other science, with Freud being a heavy cocaine abuser and addict and possibly even a child molester.

I admit I’m having an issue with the term programming, as it suggests to me that we’re machines with a CPU, which need software instructions in order to address its functions. So consequently there’s nothing that comes out of such human machine, which was not considered by the creator of such software. That’s why I refuse to think about and accept my physical entity and my brain defined as programmable subjects and refuse to use the term of programmed when talking about human behavior. I as well explained why I think there is nothing predictive in those manipulative attempts being screened. It’s just an illusion as we’re observing these behavioral suggestions from the wrong end when trying to define it with any term.

Where we clearly don’t share the same opinion or view about the nature of things, Kevin, is about PP and its form. The usage of media as propaganda and more generally as a tool for persuasion is very well established – the term we should consider is probably “media influence”, which is a highly research-active area in experimental psychology. This post shouldn’t be interpreted as saying that people’s opinions, beliefs, and behaviors aren’t shaped by what they see on TV or in the movies – clearly they are, to some extent. And I have explicitly mentioned it in my post. The question is rather how, and PP in particular does not seem like a likely mechanism. I’ve supported my view with some research-based conclusions, saying PP is an empty term in psychological context and further explained why I think there’s nothing predictive in this context.

I don’t know if you read Mike Wood’s article, so I’ll quote portion of it here as he addresses the same issue we disagree about:

The basic idea of predictive programming is that seeing something portrayed in popular media will prevent people from reacting to the same event when it happens in their own lives. Rather than resisting it, they will accept it and move on. This is something that people are not aware of – they are persuaded unconsciously, subliminally, without their knowledge or consent.

And then further:

In fact, there has been a good amount of psychological research on subliminal persuasion. For instance, Karremans, Stroebe, and Klaus (2006) showed that subliminally showing people the name of a drink will increase the chance that they’ll pick that drink when presented with a choice – but only if they’re thirsty. However, this body of research conflicts with the idea of predictive programming on a number of counts. For instance, the core idea of predictive programming is that showing people things in fiction will prevent them from reacting to them in real life, and that the tone of the portrayal doesn’t matter. However, subliminal priming research shows the importance of positive or negative emotions – for instance, Sweeny, Grabowecky, Suzuki, and Paller (2009) showed people a series of surprised-looking faces. Unbeknownst to the participants in the study, they were also subliminally shown fearful, happy, or neutral faces along with the surprised ones. Participants remembered the surprised faces better, and rated them more positively, when they were matched with subliminal happy faces. This study, and others like it, make it implausible that portraying something in a positive or negative light doesn’t affect how it’s perceived.

My understanding of this is my statement, that there is no such thing as programming. I (or anybody else) can get suggested, confused, manipulated, influenced, compliant or desensitized, but not programmed to perform any action or accept it as normal when it’s not normal. I used the term of perverted as opposed in meaning to normal, and I’m aware that the definition of “normal” is equally debatable. So to be correct, I should’ve clarified it in advance. Perversion doesn’t necessarily have a sexual context, as i.e. a known war criminal enjoying public popularity of a national hero.

I need to add few things about APP and Woolfson’s contribution. Wiki says under Woolfson’s entry: “From 1976 to 1987, Woolfson and Parsons collaborated on the conception and lyrics for all ten albums by The Alan Parsons Project, which have achieved worldwide sales in excess of 50 million”. I agree with you though, his later Freudiana musical is a clear sign of a project pushing Freud’s influence, further cementing his dogmas. So in my opinion, it’s another marker suggesting we should take Freud’s findings with a grain ton of salt.

As much as I’ve superficially touched on Freud, his Oedipus complex theory fails to follow logic coherency of the Oedipus myth. Essentially, Oedipus complex theory says that a boy feels that he is competing with his father for possession of his mother, while a girl feels that she is competing with her mother for her father’s affections. One is “covered” with the term of Oedipus complex for boys, and Electra complex for girl. Yet Oedipus’ story and his myth suggest that he never realized or consciously knew he was seducing his actual mother or competing with his father for the possession of his mother, as he thought of himself as an normal child (he learns about his adoption after his real parents were already dead). When Oedipus later killed his real father in self-defense and married his real mother given to him as Sphinx’s reward for solving a riddle, none of it was connected with Oedipus desire for possession of his own mother. But Freud’s theory of Oedipus complex builds on this desire as if it was real, supporting it with the tragic Greek mythology figure, making connections where there are none to find, actually. The same applies to Electra’s myth and her story of allegedly competing with her mother for father’s affections. Anyway, here’s my small collection of Freud bookmarks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/may/21/paulwebster.theobserver , https://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/05/16/sigmund-freud-and-cocaine-a-love-story/ , https://sites.google.com/site/paulroebling/home/the-real-nature-of-psychology

Vexman, you’ve used the word perversion extensively, and this invariably brings to mind sexual matters.By showing or screening some perverted and immoral things ahead of time does not make those things acceptable. They are still as repulsive as they can get. What is to program about fear and shock, anyway, except for the timing when it is supposed to occur? Am I more prone to accepting anything repulsive if I see it first on the TV? Like I said before, it seems too fantastic to me that anybody could influence my ability to notice and label perversion for what it is just by showing it in advance.
What you seem to be dismissing is the generational snowballing effect of these portrayals of depravity (in whatever form.) When I was a young boy, finding a discarded Playboy magazine was the apex of decadence. By the 80’s I was “programmed” to accept cable tv and video porn as normal. People born in the 80’s upon reaching puberty only needed to click a mouse to view any form of debauchery imaginable. People born in the aughts may now buy their very own realistic sex doll and have virtual sex (I dunno?). Can’t you see the progressive programming? Or are we talking apples and oranges?

Vex and I are not in a debate, and I was not aware I would come off like that. I was merely saying that his and your interpretation of predictive programming was far beyond how I interpreted it. It just meant I had to get up to speed.

And for that reason I now step back, gracefully I hope, and read your and him as you work your way through this.

I’m a most probably younger than you, but I do remember how the porn business escaped out of the concept of normal. It was done on purpose, with huge profits, on ruined and abused lives of young individuals, with the goal to assist in confusion, destruction of family and men-to-women relations. It ties into the goals of i.e. feminism, “men are pigs” project, impulsive consumerism, and many other agendas. I don’t argue we are not influenced or affected. I just want to say we are not programmed to such behavior, but rather manipulated into accepting as normal when it’s clearly not. I never miss a chance to criticize it for what it is – a perversion of moral and ethic compass. While we see the decadence of our society in the same light, we don’t share the same idea about how we came to accepting this decadent reality as normal. Nothing was programmed in my opinion, it was about the society getting distracted with zillion projects running simultaneously, taking confusion to the extreme and unseen levels. With so much noise around us, left without any serious means to fight against such propaganda, what can we do about it? I tried to talk about it with some of my friends and it only got me a label of conservative prick, not being able to accept the progress of our society. Progress? They’ve got to be kidding me, right? Looking around I soon noticed I’m like a black sheep with my ideas of dangerous beliefs we’re moving towards as a society. But when thinking about how we got to this point, I have to argue we were programmed into it, supporting it with all the above already said. It’s not a semantics trap I’ve fallen into and we’re not talking apples and oranges here, PP simply does not have any provable results as a theory of influencing human behavior.

I think that two distinct social manipulation techniques are being confused here.

1)
Changing public attitudes about something the public considers repugnant into something they consider acceptable is done gradually in stages over a period of time. Decades at least.

For example, homosexuality was once broadly considered extremely unacceptable but the whole LBGT scene is now considered not only acceptable but heroic in our society.

This change was brought about in stages over time by the media and entertainment industries. The first step to turning something repulsive into something acceptable is to make it funny. It began with all those cross-dressing film comedians back in Hollywood’s silent era and carried on by stars of TV and movies such as Milton Berle, propagandist Billy Wilder and many, many others. Once it became something funny it was then turned into an object of sympathy and identified as a civil rights issue comparable to racial prejudice. And now, after decades of this gradual social engineering process, the public applauds gays as heroes.

Another example of this process is the current acceptance of graphic violence. It was gradually turned from something abhorrent into something commonplace and the process also began with the slapstick film comedians of the 1930s who made violence appear funny. In the 1930s you could never make a movie that graphically depicted a man being hit over the head with a hammer. But you could if it was a “comedy” film and you added a funny gong sound effect. And the entertainment industry gradually included more and more violence into its “straight” dramas with a big boost in the 1970s that continues unabated to the present. Now the most disgusting screen gore and violence is perfectly OK.

2)
Depiction of an event in movies which is then followed by a similar event presented by the news media as actually having happened.

For example, a movie shows some madman shooting people at random in a public place and then later the TV news tells us that something similar really happened.

I believe this is done to make it more easily accepted by the public as a real event and to increase the emotional response (“shock value”) to it.

“His background is that of a renaissance man with a background in three professions, plus having various books published in religions, philosophy, poetry, mainly under pseudonyms. For much of his life (for main income) he was heavily involved in the music industry as a singer/songwriter/performer involved in folk music, blues, pop, rock, and even classical. Also known for his session guitar work, he has played with some of the most well-known artists and groups.”

What are the titles of these “various books” he “had published” under pseudonyms. Did he actually write them or just “have them published”? Is he using a pseudonym now? If so, what is his real name? And, what songs did he write? Where did he perform? What are the names of “the most well-known artists and groups” that he performed and recorded with?

Rolleikin just made my argument for me. I have very little to add to his/her comments. I agree with him/her completely. I also agree with you Vexman. You say manipulated, I say programmed. TomAto, Tomato. I’ve already explained why I used the word “predictive” and why I believe the term to be compromised. There’s really nothing more to be said from my end.

I’m rather of a similar opinion when it comes to the, well, scientificity of such concepts. There isn’t any, and can’t be – because we cannot isolate the causes and effects. It’s much like vaccines. While I have no problem with vaccines in concept, it’s actually impossible to tell if they worked or not – because it’s impossible (currently, with modern tech) to determine if the vaccinated person was ever actually exposed to the virus or disease being vaccinated against.

How can we possibly develop a “control” for PP? We would have to isolate every factor, basically set up two completely isolated (from each other) realities to even begin to make any scientific deductions on the topic.

And to support your theory, Vexman, let’s look at some of the recent “mass shootings”. Sure, they’re completely fake, but people react as though they are real. They get very upset, even sad and even grieve (or say they do) over such “terrorist events”. But watch any good action film or TV show and mass shootings are a given. Even the heroes kill tens or dozens or scores of people. The entertainment media is completely saturated with mass murder, wantonly so I might add. People LOVE to watch people die. The more that die, the merrier. The more nasty and gory and filthy the death, the better!

If PP were valid and viable, this would not be the case. Sensitivity would be eroded, but it’s not. More people would call for MORE violence, and pretty please with sugar on top. But they do not. As desensitized as most people are, they really aren’t nearly as insensate as PP would suggest. Not even close.

That is well said, Jared, many good points. Violence is predominant in our culture, that’s a fact. I find it amazing that almost nobody seems to object to the amount or level of violence being force fed via the TV and mass media. It was always irritating to me as I like to think of myself as a pacifist. I still want to believe that people are in general good by default and only get corrupted later if they turn to violence (or anything immoral), so in my opinion every human has an innate sense of morally acceptable things, just as much as we can all make a distinction between right and wrong. Right? Or is it just my ever lasting naivety making me biased ?

I agree completely with what has been mentioned. I don’t feel there is a “wrong” answer here because either way it’s being used for the same reasons to achieve the same results. Another term I have seen mentioned is “preparatory propaganda.” Bottomline, it’s the same never-ending PSYOPS (Psychological Operations) to manipulate and deceive the masses.

Similar to what ROLLEIKIN said, I’ve always associated “predictive programming” with “normalcy bias” or desensitization to some degree. Like Jared’s violence comment people may not demand more violence, but they think it’s normal and tolerate more of it.